Allowed¶8

Swarnalata Arun Ghanmode v. Arun S/O. Ramdasji Ghanmode (Husband of Petitioner)

Bombay HC18 Nov 2025WP/622/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Domestic Violence Act 2005; Section 3 definition of domestic violence; maintenance Rs.1500/- per month; litigation costs/compensation Rs.5000/-; perverse appellate findings; vague allegations insufficient; cross-examination admissions; driven out of house on 30.05.2018; FIR quashing under Section 498-A IPC versus D.V. Act parameters; Articles 226 and 227 writ; Yavatmal; Maregaon; Kelapur; Criminal Writ Petition No. 622/2023 allowed; appellate order quashed; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:12300.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal in Criminal Appeal No.2/2022, thereby restoring the Trial Court's order of 25.06.2020 granting maintenance and litigation costs under the D.V. Act. ¶8

Swarnalata Arun Ghanmode Vs Arun S/O. Ramdasji Ghanmode… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's allegations establish domestic violence within the meaning of the D.V. Act such that the Appellate Court's findings (vague allegations, vital admissions in cross-examination, petitioner having left voluntarily) are perverse and its order setting aside the Trial Court's maintenance award should be interfered with. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

Nothing was brought on record by the respondent to prove his counter-allegations; the Appellate Court's findings are perverse, and merely observing that the allegations are vague in nature is not sufficient.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's evidence on domestic violence was not shaken in the cross-examination.

¶6

Key takeaways

The respondent used to suspect the petitioner's character, beat her and drove her out of the house; all these factors are covered under the definition of domestic violence.ratio¶7
The Appellate Court's finding of vital admissions in the petitioner's cross-examination is perverse; there were no vital admissions undermining her case.ratio¶7
The Appellate Court's finding that the petitioner left the respondent's company of her own will is perverse; the evidence itself states that on 30.05.2018 the respondent drove her out of the house.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition No. 622/2023 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench; M. M. Nerlikar, J.; decided 18.11.2025; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:12300). Wife's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur (Criminal Appeal No.2/2022), which had quashed and set aside the JMFC Maregaon order dated 25.06.2020 granting her Rs.1500/- monthly maintenance and Rs.5000/- litigation costs under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Held: the Appellate Court's findings are perverse — the allegations were not vague; the respondent's conduct (suspecting her character, beating her, and driving her out of the house on 30.05.2018) falls within the Section 3 definition of domestic violence; no vital admissions in cross-examination shook her evidence; and quashing of the FIR under Section 498-A IPC for vagueness does not govern D.V. Act proceedings, the parameters being altogether different, each case to be considered on its own merits. Petition allowed; appellate judgment and order quashed and set aside.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:12300

¶2

wp 622.23.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 622/2023

¶6

Swarnalata Arun Ghanmode, aged about 47 yrs., Occ. Housewife, R/o. C/o. Tarachand B. Kamble, Sane Guruji Nagar, Maregaon, Tah. Maregaon, Dist. Yavatmal.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Arun S/o Ramdasji Ghanmode, Aged about 61 yrs, Occ. Private, R/o. S.T. Colony, near Radha-Krishna Mandir, Yavatmal, Tah & Dist. Yavatmal (Husband of petitioner)

¶10

...RESPONDENT

¶11

Mr. N. Gurnanif, Advocate h/f Mr. A.S. Dhore, Advocate for petitioner

¶12

Ms. K. Deshpande, Advocate h/f Mr. T. S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent.

¶13

CORAM : M. M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 18.11.2025

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

wp 622.23.odt

By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal in Criminal Appeal No.2/2022, wherein the judgment and order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maregaon Dist. Yavatmal granting Rs.1500/- as maintenance and compensation of Rs.5000/- under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“D.V. Act”) was quashed and set aside.

¶19

3. Brief facts:-

¶20

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 21.04.1995. They have two sons out of the wedlock, both have attained the age of majority. The petitioner wife had submitted a complaint on 13.08.2018 before the Protection Officer, Maregaon for grant of protection under the Domestic Violence Act. That, upon considering the allegations of the petitioner, Domestic Violence Report came to be filed and upon the reply of the respondent, the learned trial Court has

¶21

wp 622.23.odt

¶22

¶23

passed the judgment and order on 25.06.2020, whereby the Trial Court issued the directions to the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- to the petitioner- wife and Rs.5000/- towards the litigation costs. However, in appeal the learned Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, on 13.07.2022. Being aggrieved by the order in appeal, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court apparently failed to take into consideration the entire material placed on record. The ground on which the appeal was allowed is not tenable and contrary to the evidence on record. He submits that the Appellate Court has observed that allegations are vague, therefore there is no domestic violence. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal on the basis of admission given in the cross-examination. On the contrary, no admission in the cross-examination was given, and suggestions given to the petitioner were denied by the petitioner. He further submits that the another ground on

¶25

wp 622.23.odt

¶26

¶27

which the appeal was allowed is that the petitioner left the company of the husband by her own will, this finding is against the evidence on record. He further submits that the Appellate Court has placed heavy reliance on quashing of FIR against the present respondent by the High Court and therefore, came to the conclusion that the allegations are vague in nature. Accordingly, he submits that even though the FIR is quashed, the parameters under the D.V. Act are totally different. A meagre amount of Rs.1500/- was granted by the Trial Court and therefore, the Appellate Court ought not to have disturbed the findings of the Trial Court and accordingly, prayed to allow the petition.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the judgment of the Appellate Court is based on sound reasoning. The Appellate Court has considered entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the allegations are vague. The petitioner had also made allegations against his sons. Further, it is contended that vital admissions have come on record in the cross-examination of the petitioner

¶29

wp 622.23.odt

¶30

¶31

which are against her case and therefore, there is no substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Further, there is no evidence which proves that the respondent has committed domestic violence on the petitioner. The petitioner has left the company of the respondent herself as per her own wish and will. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that that the FIR registered by the present petitioner was quashed by the High Court observing that the allegations are vague, wherein similar allegations were made by the petitioner which are made in the present proceedings also and so he prayed to reject the present writ petition.

¶32

Upon hearing both the counsel and after going through the material available on record, it appears that the Trial Court has granted Rs.1500/- to the petitioner as maintenance after considering the entire evidence on record and thereafter held that domestic violence is committed by the respondent and to that effect, those allegations have been proved by the present petitioner. In support of the complaint, the petitioner had filed the affidavit of examination-in-chief, wherein she has

¶33

wp 622.23.odt

¶34

¶35

specifically stated that the respondent-husband used to beat her, it further appears from the evidence that the respondent suspected her character. and frequently he used to torture her and lastly, it is stated in the examination-in-chief that on 30.05.2018, she was driven out of the house by the husband. It has also came on record that when the petitioner went to meet her son in the Government Hospital, at that time also, the respondent has abused her in filthy language and beat her. In the cross-examination, it was tried by the learned counsel for respondent to bring on record regarding her conduct and character by putting certain suggestions and it was also attempted to bring on record that she is earning as she was running a stationary shop. Further, it was also tried to bring on record that she was having ample balance in her bank account. However, there is nothing to suggest that her evidence so far as the domestic violence is concerned, has been shaken in the cross-examination. In order to appreciate the evidence led by the petitioner, it is necessary to consider the definition of Section 3 of the D.V. Act which reads as under:-

¶36

wp 622.23.odt

¶37

¶38

“3. Definition of domestic violence.—For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it—

¶39

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

¶40

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

¶41

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

¶42

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.”

¶43

After going through the evidence of the petitioner, in my opinion, nothing has been brought on record by the respondent, to prove his allegations, the findings of the Appellate Court in

¶44

that regard are perverse and merely observing that the allegations are vague in nature is not sufficient.

¶45

wp 622.23.odt

¶46

¶47

After perusal of the complaint as well as evidence led by the petitioner, it has come on record that the respondent used to suspect her character, beat her and she was driven out of the house. All these factors are covered under the definition of Domestic Violence. Further, it is necessary to consider overall facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the Appellate Court has miserably failed to take into consideration, the evidence led by the petitioner in its true perspective. The ground on which the appeal was allowed, was “vague allegations” however, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner has made vague allegations. On the contrary, it has

¶48

come on record that the respondent used to suspect her character, therefore it amounts to mental harassment to the petitioner. The finding about the admission in the crossexamination of the petitioner by the Appellate Court is also perverse for the reasons that there are no vital admission, which undermines the case of the petitioner, on the contrary, she has specifically deposed about beating and use of filthy language. Further, the finding of the Appellate Court to the extent that the

¶49

wp 622.23.odt

¶50

¶51

petitioner left the company of respondent by herself is perverse as the evidence itself at para 5, specifically states that on 30.05.2018, the respondent has driven her out of the house. It is further to be noted that the Appellate Court has heavily been influenced by the fact that the High Court has quashed the FIR registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the allegations are vague. However it is necessary to mention at this juncture that the parameter for quashing of the FIR registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the case under the D.V. Act is all together different, therefore each case has to be considered on its own merits. It is necessary to mention that all the allegations have to be taken in its entirety and therefore, merely taking some part from the evidence is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that there is no domestic violence. Apparently, the Appellate Court has failed to consider these aspects.

¶52

Considering the above facts and circumstances, the case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order of

¶53

wp 622.23.odt

¶54

¶55

the Appellate Court and accordingly, the following order is

¶56

passed:-

¶57

ORDER

¶58

I. Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.

¶59

II. This Court hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal in Criminal Appeal No.2/2022.

¶60

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶61

( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.)

¶62

Gohane

Swarnalata Arun Ghanmode v. Arun S/O. Ramdasji Ghanmode (Husband of Petitioner)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swarnalata Arun Ghanmode v. Arun S/O. Ramdasji Ghanmode (Husband of Petitioner)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Ramlakhan Mishra Vs Vishal Prakash Singh

Raju S/O. Narayan Warhade Vs Sunita W/O. Raju Warhade and Others

Minkashi Satish Nichat Vs Satish Marotrao Nichat and 6 Others

Jamir @ Jammu Shah Mehbub vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Warud Dist Amravati

Dinesh S/O Dnyandeo Hiralkar Vs Shamrao S/O Dagduji Hivrale

Megha Shrikrushan Mate Vs Kundan Shrikrushna Mate